Delhi HC grants POCSO bail citing romantic tie, victim's initial statement
Synopsis
The Delhi High Court has granted bail in a POCSO case after the accused spent over three years in custody — citing the documented romantic relationship between the 20-year-old applicant and the 14-year-old victim, her initial statement disavowing any complaint, and the slow pace of a trial with 19 witnesses where only two have been examined.
Key Takeaways
Delhi High Court granted bail to Vicky , a 20-year-old POCSO accused, on 7 October 2026 .
The applicant had been in judicial custody for more than three years since an FIR at Aman Vihar Police Station in July 2023 .
Justice Mini Pushkarna cited the documented romantic relationship and the victim's initial statement — that she left home voluntarily and had no complaint — as mitigating factors.
The victim, aged 14 years and eight months at the time, later alleged sexual assault; the prosecution argued consent is irrelevant under POCSO.
FSL report found a mixed DNA profile on a blanket; no male DNA was detected in cervical samples.
Of 19 prosecution witnesses , only two have been examined; the trial is expected to take considerable time.
The Delhi High Court on 7 October 2026 granted bail to a 20-year-old man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that the documented romantic relationship between him and the 14-year-old victim — along with her initial statement that she had left home voluntarily and had no complaint against anyone — constituted mitigating factors that tilted the balance in favour of bail. The applicant, identified as Vicky, had been in judicial custody for more than three years since an FIR was registered at Aman Vihar Police Station in July 2023.
Background and FIR
The case originated when the victim's father filed a missing complaint after his minor daughter did not return home after leaving for school on 28 July 2023. She was traced on 30 July 2023 and brought to the police station. During initial counselling, the victim stated she had left home in anger after being scolded by her mother and had gone to her maternal aunt's house, adding that she had no complaint against anyone and that no one had wronged her.
The victim subsequently gave a second statement alleging that Vicky had kept her against her will and sexually assaulted her. It was following this second statement that provisions relating to sexual assault and the POCSO Act were added to the FIR.
Court's Key Observations
A single-judge bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that the victim was 14 years and eight months old and the applicant was 20 years and four months old at the time of the incident. The court recorded that the two had been in a relationship for several months before the incident, and that the victim had posted photographs of the applicant on Instagram — including photographs of the two in intimate positions — expressing her affection for him.
The bench observed: 'The Court cannot ignore the young age of both the applicant as well as the victim. The documents on record show the intimate and romantic relationship between the applicant and the victim. Further, in her initial statement, the victim stated in categorical terms that she had left the house of her own accord and that she did not want to make any complaint against anyone. These facts cannot be disregarded and serve as mitigating factors which tilt the balance towards grant of bail to the applicant.'
The court also noted that the victim had made different statements on different dates — a discrepancy it factored into its assessment.
Forensic Evidence and Trial Status
The court took note of the forensic evidence on record. According to the FSL report, the DNA profiles of both the applicant and the victim were accounted for in a mixed DNA profile obtained from a blanket recovered from the alleged place of incident. However, no male DNA could be generated from the cervical swabs and smears of the victim.
The court further observed that the trial was likely to take considerable time. Of 19 prosecution witnesses, only the victim and her father had been examined so far. This was the third regular bail application filed by Vicky in the case.
Prosecution's Opposition
The prosecution strongly opposed bail, submitting that the allegations were of an extremely grave nature involving a minor and that consent was legally irrelevant in POCSO proceedings. The complainant's counsel also argued that the victim had made categorical allegations of sexual assault and that prosecution witnesses had corroborated each other's accounts.
Bail Conditions
Justice Pushkarna directed Vicky to appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and furnish his permanent and current residential addresses to the investigating officer. He must keep his mobile number operational and report to the jurisdictional police station every Monday at 9 am. He is prohibited from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case, or tampering with evidence.
The court clarified that its observations were made solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would neither influence the trial proceedings nor be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. The matter will continue to be heard at the trial court level.
Point of View
And the bench appears to have weighed that systemic failure in its calculus. What the order does not resolve — and what the trial must — is the evidentiary weight of two contradictory statements from the same complainant. The forensic finding of no male DNA in cervical samples, while not exculpatory, will likely become a centrepiece of the defence. The broader question this case raises is whether special POCSO courts are adequately resourced to deliver timely justice, because prolonged undertrial detention — in either direction — distorts the outcome.
NationPress
7 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Delhi High Court grant bail in this POCSO case?
The Delhi High Court granted bail primarily because the victim's initial statement said she had left home voluntarily and had no complaint against anyone, and because documented evidence showed a months-long romantic relationship between the two. The court also factored in that the applicant had already spent over three years in judicial custody and the trial was progressing slowly.
Does a romantic relationship serve as a defence under the POCSO Act?
No — under the POCSO Act, consent is legally irrelevant when the victim is a minor, and a romantic relationship does not constitute a defence to the charges. In this case, the court considered the relationship only as a mitigating factor for the limited purpose of deciding bail, explicitly noting that its observations would not influence the trial or be taken as a view on the merits.
What were the bail conditions imposed by the court?
Vicky must appear before the trial court on every date of hearing, furnish his residential addresses to the investigating officer, keep his mobile number operational, and report to the jurisdictional police station every Monday at 9 am. He is also barred from contacting or influencing any person connected with the case or tampering with evidence.
What does the forensic evidence show in this case?
According to the FSL report, the DNA profiles of both the applicant and the victim were found in a mixed DNA profile obtained from a blanket recovered from the alleged place of incident. However, no male DNA could be generated from the cervical swabs and smears of the victim.
How far has the trial progressed?
The trial has proceeded slowly: of 19 prosecution witnesses, only the victim and her father have been examined so far. The High Court cited this slow pace as an additional factor in granting bail, noting the trial was likely to take considerable further time.
